[1] Whether the sentence that the presiding judge explains due to psychological tension and the meaning of the reason for the judgment is "when an appeal is not filed within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself or his/her representative, as stipulated in Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act (negative)

[2] Whether taking part in the subject case of appeal claim constitutes grounds for exclusion or challenge of judge in the case of appeal for recovery of inheritance right (negative)

[1] The first defendant's seat does not constitute "when the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself or his/her representative, as provided in Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the sole ground that he/she could not have properly seen the meaning of the sentence and the reason for the judgment explained by the presiding judge due to psychological tension with the wind."

[2] The part in the judgment of appeal claim cannot be seen as a ground for exclusion or challenge of the judge in the case of appeal claim.

[1] Article 345, / [2] Article 17, 7, and Article 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 87Mo19 dated April 8, 1987 (Gong1987, 1161)

Appellant

Suwon District Court Order 99 seconds113 dated April 28, 1999

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

50 days out of the number of days of confinement before the date of this decision shall be included in the punishment of the appeal.

The grounds of appeal by an appellant shall be examined.

First, the appellant was prosecuted for violating the Illegal Check Control Act and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Suwon District Court Decision 98Da1182 delivered on March 3, 1999. The reason why the appellant did not appeal against the above judgment is the reason that the appellant was first unable to hear the meaning of the sentence explained by the presiding judge due to psychological tensions on the wind and the reason for the judgment in his seat for the first time. Thus, the appellant's claim for the restoration of the right to appeal of this case was just, but the court below's dismissal is unfair. The above reasons alleged by the appellant cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the appellant or his/her representative fails to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself or his/her representative under Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the request for the restoration of right

Second, the appellant failed to file an appeal because he did not give sufficient notice of the period of appeal and appeal while the presiding judge rendered a judgment. Thus, the appellant's claim for recovery of appeal of this case is justifiable even though he was justified. According to the first instance court's decision protocol against the appellant, the appellant was present, and the judge stated the judgment in the judgment and notified the appeal period and the appeal court and signed and sealed by the judge. Thus, the above judgment procedure is lawful. Thus, the appellant's above assertion that the appellant did not give sufficient notice of the period of appeal and appeal is not acceptable (or, according to the examination protocol by the court of appeal against the appellant), according to the court's decision protocol against the appellant, the appellant is a person who has received notice of the period of appeal at the court of appeal and the presiding judge's sentence against the defendant, and the reason why the defendant was not detained by the presiding judge can be acknowledged to the purport that he explained that the appellant's opportunity to recover the checks is to maintain economic activities in a free condition and thus, the appellant's above assertion cannot be accepted).

Third, the appellant asserts that the original decision was unfair in light of the purport of Article 17 subparagraph 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the subject decision of the appeal of this case (the decision of 98Kadan1182 delivered on March 3, 1999) and the original decision of this case (the decision of 99Mo113 delivered on April 28, 199) were made by the same judge. In light of the records, the appellant argues that the original decision of this case was unfair in light of the purport of subparagraph 7 of Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, it is recognized that the decision of the appeal of this case and the original decision of this case were made by the same judge, but it is not deemed that such reasons were the grounds for exclusion or challenge of the judge, and it does not seem to fall under Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act, so the appellant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appellant's argument is without merit and there is no other evidence to prove that there is a reason stipulated in Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the appellant's request for recovery of his right of appeal of this case shall not be exempted from dismissal. As such, the original decision is legitimate, so the appellant's appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 414 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It shall be decided as per Disposition by including 50 days out of the number of days of confinement before the date of this decision in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Judges Hong Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)